State ex rel. City of Garfield Heights v. Nadratowski, 76-98
| Decision Date | 23 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-98,76-98 |
| Citation | 75 O.O.2d 497,46 Ohio St.2d 441,349 N.E.2d 298 |
| Parties | , 75 O.O.2d 497 The STATE ex rel. CITY OF GARFIELD HEIGHTS v. NADRATOWSKI. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Francis X. Reddy, Jr., Cleveland, director of law, for relator.
Newman & Newman, joel I. Newman and Gordon Biggs, Cleveland, for respondent.
Respondent contends that summary judgment is not now appropriate inasmuch as the status of Garfield Heights as a charter city is in issue. No affidavits or other evidentiary support is submitted by respondent to support his denial of the complaint's allegation relating to the adoption of a charter by the electors of Garfield Heights. Thus, respondent has failed to comply with Civ.R. 56(E) which requires that he '* * * must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.' Respondent's answer, which admits paragraph three of the complaint which sets forth Section 9 of the Charter, presents a patent inconsistency with his apparent denial of the charter's existence, further emphasizing why respondent can not here rest upon such denial to avoid summary judgment.
Disposition of this case is made upon the basis of State, ex rel. Platz, v. Mucci (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 60, 225 N.E.2d 238, on both the question of whether a public school teacher is in public employment and whether a charter provision prohibiting a member of council from holding 'other public office or public employment' is constitutional. Thus, we hold that a public school teacher receiving a salary supported by tax moneys is in other public employment, and the creation of a class prohibited as to 'public employment' has a reasonable basis so as to be within the equal protection clause of the federal Constitution.
The filing of this action in this court was authorized on January 26, 1976, by resolution of the city council of relator, and was so filed on February 2, 1976. The time lapse between the action of relator to obtain judicial determination herein and respondent's election of November 4, 1975, was not inexpedient nor was relator's payment of respondent's salary tantamount to a condonation. The issue here is the right of respondent to the office of member of city council in light of the qualification and forfeiture provision as aforesaid and does not involve a question of entitlement to salary. The defense of laches is not well taken.
Accordingly, a writ of quo warranto is allowed.
Writ allowed.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Albritton v. Neighborhood Centers Ass'n for Child Development, 83-1052
...by specific facts, that there is a genuine issue for trial in order to avoid summary judgment. State, ex rel. Garfield Heights, v. Nadratowski (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 441, 442-443, 349 N.E.2d 298 . Unsupported allegations in opposition to a motion for summary judgment are insufficient to requ......
-
Michael R. Willson v. Board of Trustees of the Ohio State University, and James Jones
... ... summary judgment. State, ex rel. Garfield Heights, ... v. Nadratowski ... ...
-
State ex rel. Joseph Smith v. the City of Bay Village ., Case
...to, but denied the opportunity to serve on, city council due to a similar charter restriction on other public employment, the court stated at 443: Disposition of this case is made upon the basis of ex rel. Platz, v. Mucci (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 60, on both the question of whether a public sc......
-
Siegler v. Batdorff
...Cunningham v. J. A. Meyers Co., (1964), 176 Ohio St. 410, 413-14, 200 N.E.2d 305. See also, State ex rel. Garfield Heights v. Nadratowski, (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 441, 442-43, 200 N.E.2d 305. Consequently, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it was not error for the trial court to con......